You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2006-10-02 11:37:00
- lumiwa
- Member
- Registered: 2005-12-26
- Posts: 712
Desktop memory usage
Interesting site:
Offline
#2 2006-10-02 15:57:33
- dolby
- Member
- From: 1992
- Registered: 2006-08-08
- Posts: 1,581
Re: Desktop memory usage
this was posted on planet archlinux a while back
There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums. That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)
Offline
#3 2006-10-02 16:31:16
- lumiwa
- Member
- Registered: 2005-12-26
- Posts: 712
Re: Desktop memory usage
this was posted on planet archlinux a while back
Sorry...I missed it :oops:
Offline
#4 2006-10-02 17:26:10
- slackhack
- Member
- Registered: 2004-06-30
- Posts: 738
Re: Desktop memory usage
no pictures? 
Offline
#5 2006-10-03 13:45:53
- Romashka
- Forum Fellow
- Registered: 2005-12-07
- Posts: 1,054
Re: Desktop memory usage
See what one of Xfce developers thinks about these tests: http://blog.xfce.org/?p=176
to live is to die
Offline
#6 2006-10-04 21:40:13
- toxic
- Member
- Registered: 2006-06-05
- Posts: 117
Re: Desktop memory usage
Too much text 
But the tables gave at least a hint of the different wm's memory usage. It seems I've underestimated Xfce a little bit according to those tests.
Naturally, there's more then just measuring the amount of memory allocated by the WM. If that extra memory means applications will load/work faster then it'll probably be worth it.
I could also notice they didn't perform this with an Arch install, since I have somewhere around 35MB RAM allocated when starting X + Fluxbox.
Offline
#7 2006-10-04 23:05:38
- Romashka
- Forum Fellow
- Registered: 2005-12-07
- Posts: 1,054
Re: Desktop memory usage
I don't like the methodology of these tests.
It has some good points, but there are also some bad.
However it was an interesting reading for me.
to live is to die
Offline
Pages: 1